In These Times: 'Why Women Hate Hillary'

She reinforces the Genghis Khan principle of American politics that our leaders must be ruthless and macho

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/why_women_hate_hillary/

We sat around the dinner table, a group of 50-something progressive feminists, talking to a friend from England about presidential politics. We were all for Hillary, weren’t we, he asked. Hillary? We hated Hillary. He was taken aback. Weren’t we her base? Wasn’t she one of us? Why did we hate Hillary?

Of course, a lot of people seem to hate Hillary. According to some polls, anywhere from 39 to 50 percent of respondents claim they’d vote against her no matter what; her “negatives” continue to be high. Many of these are Republicans and men. But many are not. According to a Harris poll in March, 52 percent of married women said they would not vote for her. Nearly half of adults say they dislike her personality and her politics. Unlike her husband, people seem to find her cold and don’t see her connecting with everyday people, and this is especially true for married women. Ironically, it is Gen Xers, those between 31 and 42, who give her the most support.

So what gives? For people like my friends and me, her hawkish position on Iraq and her insistence that the U.S. maintain a military presence there even after the troops are withdrawn have been very disappointing. But it’s more than any specific position. Women don’t trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her. Why?

<snip>

Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.

<snip>

All of this frames many women’s reactions to Hillary. If she’s a feminist, how could she continue to support this war for so long? If she’s such a passionate advocate for children, women and families, how could she countenance the ongoing killing of innocent Iraqi families, and of American soldiers who are also someone’s children? If it would be so revolutionary to have a female as president, why does she feel like the same old poll-driven opportunistic politician who seems to craft her positions accordingly?

That would be my major problem, yes.

K&R

<snip>

Clearly, Hillary and her advisors have calculated that for a woman to be elected in this country, she’s got to come across as just as tough as the guys. And maybe they’re right. But so far, Hillary is not getting men with this strategy, and women feel written off. After the dark ages of this pugnacious administration, many of us want to let the light in. We want a break with the past, optimism, and a recommitment to the government caring about and serving the needs of everyday people. We want what feminism began to fight for 40 years ago—humanizing deeply patriarchal institutions. And, ironically, we see candidates like John Edwards or Barack Obama—men—offering just that. If Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president, then maybe, just maybe, she should actually run as a woman.

She should study Nancy -- who seems to be able to be a woman AND lead at the same time.

Go, Dennis!

Is she non-threatening or doesn't that mean she is too weak to be effective. And, last time I looked there was a lot of hatred for Pelosi on DU for not impeaching. So is Pelosi a real woman or not?

The term "to be a woman" is a variation on an old sexist phrase from prior to the women's movement: "a real woman."

And real women were hard to come by in those days....because no one really knew what they were. The only thing people dd know was that no one ever felt like a real woman so women felt "ineffectual."

no matter your sex, gender or sexual preference or practice.

Who is Hillary Clinton? :

Presidents adn politicians are leaders. To apply a secondary expectation to some candidates because they were born female is discrimination.

family dead.

And your charge of discrimination is baseless.

are people.

Your charge of "being a woman" has a potency that disparages Hillary for being strong, assertive , aggressive.
In all due respect, the wording is sexist.

Nancy can be strong, assertive, aggressive and GENUINE.

It's about the skills.

in political life -- integrity.

before to being a little unhinged on the subject of Senator Clinton.

and, I do believe we need a female president with a feminist point of view to break the deadlock on male domination of our political system - which has been lethal for us and the planet. Best,Captain Nemo

Yes. By the folks Clinton needs to vote for her, he most certainly was.

the people who criticized him were not in the majority. They were a very small minority.

may be a very small overstatement.

I don't think he was elected by the folks Hillary needs to win the Democratic primary. Except maybe a "very small minority" of them.

to male religion and his listening to Leiberman and Powell. Yeah, he is a real progressive!

I have noticed this phenomenon many years ago, both in politics and business. For a woman to "succeed" to the highest levels in patriarcial socities, they seem to always embrace, try to emulate, the patriarchs and take on autoritaristic qualities. Margret Thatcher is one high profile example of this.

Women can be strong leaders w/o embracing the patriarch or leading in an authoritarian manner: Maxine Waters, Barbera Boxer, Louise Slaughter, Sheila Jackson Lee...but the glass ceiling is much lower when women are true to themselves.

The term "to be a woman" is a variation on an old sexist phrase from prior to the women's movement: "a real woman."

She's not my candidate, but I am 100% in agreement with you on this. We should be way past the point of criticizing politicians based on whether they are acting properly as a woman.

And functioning beautifully in their clubby world? As opposed to being a noble outsider chaining herself to a gate, or camping outside their residences, or disrupting their meetings?

Well, that is, of course, very wrong of her.

By all means, when we have women on the inside, let's peck them to death for not being on the outside with the rest of us.

:)

being a male? Male drag? What a base accusation.

I didn't know women as a class hate Hillary. So I wonder where her support is coming from?? I know a lot of women that don't particularly care for Hillary for a variety of reasons but I don't know one that will vote for a Republic over her.

She inspires strong reactions, for sure, though. My 75 yr old mom is very invested in seeing a woman in office before she leaves us. And I'd rather be shot in the face than vote for this candidate. We can't even talk about it without getting mad, lol.

rather than vote for her. Hate or not it is certainly distrust and dislike.

and let a Republican win and all that that implies. Go figure.

between Hil and the current foreign policy of the neocons. Go figure. :eyes:

and look at everything in the entire (I mean everything) Clinton administration and then look at the entire Bush administration and compare. I wonder if they can, with a straight face come back and say there is "no discernible difference". If they still do, it's either of two things: 1) they didn't look very hard or 2) #1 + they're probably just stupid.

I remain completely flabbergasted when someone says no discernible difference. I want to say, "Huh? WTF are you talking about? Do you even have a clue? Were you alive during the last 14 years or were you just born yesterday?"

Jimminy Christmas...

I love to see the defense of the indefensible in action. Quite remarkable actually!

Health care. Don't ask, don't tell.

Should I go on? The list of bad decisions made by Clinton I should be enough, on the one hand, as should the implication, one the other hand, that Clinton I would have ANYTHING to do with a possible (albeit unlikely, in my book - and frankly my book has a strong historical tendency to be right) Clinton II administration.

I was not born yesterday. There are discernible differences. They are not as strong as you might like, and there is little reason to think they would be much different given the same historical setting. For example: would HRC have invaded Iraq, given 9/11? I have a bad feeling ...

I will never understand it.

Yeah, I'd like to see a female be president --
but not a female acting like a male --

This is one of the issues which I've been trying to get clear to feminists for a long time --
fighting for feminism when you have fascism on your doorstep is kinda a waste of time -- !!!!

I think the article is somewhat of an exaggeration, however . . .

I'll vote for Hillary if it's the best we can get -- but I do think that it will be easier for the GOP to sell another "steal" as Americans not being ready for a woman president, or an African-American . . . ???? Just my sense of what's going on.

And we surely know that there will be another steal -- probably with advanced technques and more sophisticated -- after all, they've had more than 6 years of practice!!!

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard and I've heard it way too often. NO ONE would touch this job without ambition. It is soul-eating grief with nothing but trouble. Ambition is the only reason to go for it.

An ambitious woman! HEAVEN FORFEND! God save us from ambitious women!

And that, my friend, is the crux of it. Uppity women.

"How many of these are planted Republican comments?" I said, "I don't think they are." She said, "They heard them from somewhere. These are not original thoughts. Whether they were planted in the media or elsewhere."

Personally, I think it's deeper and MUCH uglier.

Presidency! That's a fools argument!

Yes there are still some women who don't like agressive women. There are a lot of MEN who are still intimidated by agressive women! I HOPE that at least MOST people assess all the candidates on their abilities. Whatch what they do, who they surround themselves with now...that's a good indicator of who they'll nominate to their cabinet and help them run our Country! How do they respond to criticism by the opposition? Reemember, even Kerry now says he didn't respond quickly and forcefully enough to the Swift boaters!

All of that is why we have Primary Campaigns!

We've already kearned a very strong & serious lession of what happens when people make their choice based on who they'd like to have a beer with, or who they'd invite to their next BBQ! PLEASE let's NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!

elizabeth dole, condolezza rice, etc? The republicans have mmore aggressive women than the democrats do.

Women really need to examine what's going on here. Really. The spew I've heard about Hillary and the false rationales to make it seem logical...UGH!

It reminds me so much of Catholic bishops going after Catholic candidates. God forbid they let one of their own gain power without total adherence to absolute orthodoxy.

She just ain't pure enough. Her naked ambition is so...so...sordid. After decades of being attacked for every single thing she did no matter what, she's gotten crafty, and careful. GOSH. HOW AWFUL.

It's exactly what the male candidates are doing but the woman must be...what, exactly?

I detest her war vote. It made me sick to my stomach and it's why she doesn't have my primary vote. But to link it to FEMINISM? What, are they crazy?

We will never have a female president as long as women behave like the Catholic hierarchy.

it is an eating our own thing, and it saddens me.

And while I am not enthusiastic about her, and I hated her war vote and some others - I find myself looking at the damage being done to the federal goverment - the politicization of the civil service - which grinds work to near halting levels - and I am coming to believe that we need someone at the top with serious institutional knowledge in order to know where to begin to start putting things back together again. With Al Gore (my choice) not running - Hillary is rising to the top for me. Not due to enthusiasm but due to pragmatism. The next closest thing with some institutional knowledge is Bill Richardson.

like her politics.

I didn't know political positions have vaginas and penises.

I don't like her politics either and I don't want another round of the DLC masters. Also, quite frankly, I want new blood in the office. A different face. A new perspective. It might just be time for the Clintons to spend sometime together without the public.

"New blood," my ass. This is the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton meme slightly repackaged.

It's good to know Karl Rove does the thinking around here.

candidates since I was able to vote and I'm calling you on your smear. I don't support the DLC and I firmly believe that we are not a monarchy, something I'm fairly certain that Herr Rover wholeheartedly supports.

An apology is requested.

just got to get more hatin' on hillary in?

I am not in any candidate camp but old, rehashed articles that are inflamatory and derogatory really should have a shelf-life. Or should we keep pulling this one out once a month or so for the next 12 months?

Hillary's roots go back to being a board member for the Children's Defense Fund. She is irrevocably a feminist. She is the first First Lady to implement policy. She has survived bruising criticism (sexist criticism) from the right wingers since before she was in the White House.

1. She has repeatedly spoken up against violence against women.
2. She has instituted a bill to address the problems of inequality in women's pay (we still make less than men and we are not represented in the higher echelons of business and government.)
3. Her voting record on global warming is impeccable. (And if you don't link the rape of our environment with the violence done to women's lives you need to start reading about the roots of feminism in our country.)
4. Her vocal support of the public schol systems is strong.
5. She has stood up to the pentagon (just the other day) and they backed down.
6. Check her relationships with important women like Ferraro and Marian Wright Edelman.

This post does tremendous damage to the dialogue around women's rights in our country.

The magazine article does tremendous damage to women's rights.

Women need to start (rekindle what was started during the women's liberation movement) and strat keeping issues like violence adn poverty in women's lives in the forefront of politics.

If women agree with the article and some of the posts in this post - women are in a lot of trouble. And, its not becasue of Hillary. It's because of us.

Women need to stand together on issues - especially now.

And for every DU'er who is going to try and slam Hillary and me in this post - check your feminism, your facts and your self-respect before even trying. I am over the immature bullshit on DU when it comes to Senator Hillary Clinton.

she didn't kick Bill out on his tush for all of his philandering.

It simply boils down to that.

If they have a problem with Hillary for that, then they are most likely hypocrites because I'm sure most of them have been cheated on and stayed with their husbands.

Are you saying that you are sure most women have been cheated on, because most men cheat? Or something else?

I have no problem with men wanting more than one woman, serial monogamy, or whatever it is that they want, as long as they are honest about it and don't represent themselves falsely. Cheating is despicable. If monogamy is not someone's cup of tea, they shouldn't engage in it.

Most women give cheaters at least one more chance? According to whom?

And if so, why? Because they don't have the resources to make it on their own, having been indoctrinated to take care of the house and expect men to take care of them, or....

And "one more chance?" Like Bill's little adventure in the oval office was the first?

While there are other reasons for disliking Hillary, I believe that this, as pointed out by Clarke 2008, is a key factor in the distrust.

I did not want HC to run for the White House. I am one who has long admired her work on various issues but had reservations when she decided to seek public office. I finally realized it was because when she got slammed by Scaife and the media as first lady I felt slammed as well. It has been very painful to watch. Eventually I came to realize that she is just simply a stronger person than I and is able to take the abuse because her issues and desire for public service rise above her personal fear.

Last week I had dinner with several women close in age to HC who have known or known of her since her college days. These women are in academia or the legal profession and all would self-describe as feminists. The support around the table for her WH bid was luke warm.

I began to talk about how painful it has been to watch her journey. I spoke about my fear for her safety. I spoke about how frustrating the continual unexamined sexism of the public conversation is after all of these years. I spoke about my disappointment in the failure of our dreams for future generations that had seemed so close to success in the 60s and 70s. I asked everyone at the table to ask themselves if the reason they were not giving full-throated support to HC was because they are self-protective - when she gets hurt we feel hurt. Those of us of a certain age and a certain background have suffered many disappointments that we did not expect. We honestly assumed the ball would keep being advanced down the field - not reversed. Our hopes are somewhat dashed. The trashing of HC is a reflection of our failed ideas. Anyway, everyone laughed that it had been a good consciousness raising session and maybe some personal reflection was in order.

I am reading THE FAMILY by Kitty Kelley. It is about the Bush dynasty. I always thought Kelley was a trashy writer - I have been proven wrong. IT is a well researched book with all of her sources listed.

I am on the section about George H.W. Bush's run against Geraldine Ferraro during the Reagan presidency. The sexism against Ferraro - the smarter, tougher candidate (as noted in mainstream discussion at the time) was virulent. Calling her a "bitch." Calling her "Scratchy." The words used against Hillary are eerily similar.

If women are going to advance in our country-this includes making violence against women, women in poverty, children's health care and women in war torn countries top issues - we have to examine this hatred for Senator Clinton within our own circles.

This post is truly indicative of this hatred. And Hillary is the symbol. The hatred is for all women.

One more thing: the two top runners on male dominated religion. Clinton and Obama is a great view on the differences in the candidates. Obama embraces the male religion that has not bebnefitted owmen. Clinton, on the other hand, comes out saying that religion , as she was taught at home, is a private matter.

If we keep annointing male dominated religion women will continue to be second class.

Here's to my being able to say to my baby daughter in 2008: "She is our president."

It's funny to me that all these male Dems voted to give Bush the power to send troops to Iraq too yet they don't catch half the flak Hillary does for her vote.

I love the criticism of her femininity. It's the same in business....if a woman competes on a primarily male stage and does it well.....then she's a bitch and behind her back they will question her sexuality by putting forth the lack of femininity argument......anytime she does anything worthwhile will always be tainted by her description as a bitch no matter how invalid it is.

What is most interesting to me is the amount of Dems who are so rabidly opposed to anything she does simply because of the Republican originated slur that she's a bitch. I got news for you folks......she's a savvy politician and she scares the hell out of the Republicans ......that one factor alone makes her pretty damned good in my book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/us/politics/20poll.html?hp

Among the more interesting items is that among women respondents identifying as liberal, 66 percent have a favorable regard for Sen. Clinton, and only ten percent view her unfavorably, the remainder holding themselves neutral.

Most women expressing unfavorable views of Sen. Clinton identify as conservative, and express opposition to 'feminists' in general.

U.S. women supportive, skeptical of Clinton: poll

July 19, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More women than men have a favorable opinion of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but many female voters have negative feelings about her, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Thursday.

Women tend to agree with the New York senator and former first lady on the issues and see her as a strong leader. More than eight in 10 working women said Clinton, seeking to become the first female U.S. president, understood their problems. A majority of single women viewed her favorably, the poll found.

But married women were split on Clinton and 51 percent of women aged 45 to 64 had a negative opinion of her. Almost 40 percent of all men and 28 percent of women said they definitely would not vote for her.

(snip)

The telephone poll was conducted July 9 to Tuesday with 1,554 respondents, including 1,068 women. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/20/us_women_supportive_skeptical_of_clinton_poll/

The Times , obviously, goes into more detail on its own poll, and the Times article has a later date-line.

It is worth noting that a certain cherry-picking is employed in the lead paragraphs. As a demographic, married women skew to the right, and vote Republican at about the same rate as men in general: the famous 'gender gap' is mostly owing to single women. The forty-five to sixty-four age group also has the highest concentration of anti-feminist feelings of just about any cohort of women, as it will include those who did not join as young women in the movement at its modern inception in the sixties, as well as, in its lower ranges, people who came of political age in the Reagan period. In short, the 'problem' Sen. Clinton has with women is among women more or less inclined towards the right of the spectrum on both general political attitudes, and attitudes towards feminism in particular.

most anti-feminist. We did all the work! lol

:hi:

Some hard glares from people in housecoats, with hair up in rollers....

:rofl:

:shrug:

Factor out AA women and it vanishes.

than anecdotal "evidence".

The bottom line is, she does not appeal to the true left or to just about anyone to the right. How does a Democratic candidate win without their "base"?. Or have Liberals been knocked out of the base position by "centrists"?.

:shrug:

Hillary's Achilles' Heel

http://www.slate.com/id/2169159/

According to the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of the country has an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton. Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore achieved such a high negative rating in the Gallup poll during their failed presidential bids. In other polls, her unfavorable ratings are as much as 12 points higher than those of any other candidate running in either party. Favorability is an imperfect measure of voters' fondness, because it also captures the way voters think about policy positions, but in surveys that ask specifically about likability, she does horribly. This dim view is confirmed in less-scientific focus groups—and in my notebooks, which are filled with interviews with Democrats, some of whom support her, who express doubts about her electability without any prompting.

The Clinton candidacy poses a fascinating question for the ongoing debate among political scientists over whether emotion or reason drives voters. Many Democrats still debate whether in 2004 they should have picked Howard Dean, the flawed candidate who thrilled people, rather than John Kerry, who was stable, sensible, and safe. As Bill Clinton has said, Democrats prefer to fall in love with their candidates and Republicans fall in line. But now his wife is the fall-in-line candidate—the front-runner with the résumé, discipline, and organization. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate of the heart.

Its results in general range around fifty-fifty favorable/unfavorable, and in this it seems to have something of the outlyer about it. Most polls have shown the un-favorable segment dropping as the campaign progresses.

What the 'true left' might be, or what you conceive it to be, is unclear to me. In current polls, and in polls dating to her various Senatorial elections, respondents identifying as liberal have consistently given Sen. Clinton very high marks, much higher than the general run of the population. Apparently, your view of 'the true left' reads out to the right a great many people who consider themselves persons on the left, and who are doubtless perceived as such by their friends and neighbors, and certainly would be regarded as such by genuine rightists.

There are similar difficulties with your invocation of 'the base'. The base of a Party consists in those who can be relied on to support it: to defend its officials and policies, campaign for and vote for its candidates. It does not, and indeed cannot, include people who continually proclaim willingness not to support it, and to work for splinter groups.

The radical right told them to hate Hillary.

I believe the writer ought to have been dismissed.

One of the most poorly written pieces I've seen in that publication ever.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

this particular individual running intersect but aren't the same issue. :shrug:

to the middle class and has seriously injured national security, imho.

in it. Sheesh.

:eyes:

Some people just love to hate; that's the only way they're happy. :eyes: :shrug: Disliking someone is
normal, but Hating is pretty serious stuff. I would hate someone who hurt my child or loved one.

are simply becasue she is female. I have refrained from saying that on DU - or anywhere. But I am more convinced than ever. Women have to realize that the placing of women in children down on the social scale is a byproduct of a male dominated society. Senator Clinton gets high marks on the treatment of women and children.
Progressives just won't give her an inch. Now maybe if they had moved that hate to Nader (for his millions won in the stock market) we might be getting somewhere.

at least thats what the MSM says

excuse me but, Hillary is far from a progressive. Actually if given the chance, she would destroy the progressive movement.

all this hate in this forum, why not post nothing. I have never seen as much hate from folks on the left about a candidate then I have towards HRC. Instead of expressing your hate, why not post a postive. Since she is one of our candidates for president.
I have said all along I support HRC.If however another dem comes along and wins the nomination I will support that candidate over any repug. If I were to write hate about a candidate you support then I am questioning your judgement. I would not do that because it pulls us apart rather then trying to bring us together...
So if hate is all you have then sad is you.

I do thank you
Ben David

I never felt obligated to support Margaret Thatcher just because she's female, so I don't see why I should support Hillary just because she's female, when I vehemently disagree with her politically.

I am adamantly opposed to the DLC, to neoliberalism, to corporatism, and to imperialism. Why in the world would I want to support a candidate who represents these things?

My antipathy has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her ideology.

sw

so

She is not my candidate in the Primary but I will vote for her if she is our nominee. I don't hate her. She is far to the Right of me but for that matter, so are most around here and in life.

As far as her seeming cold compared to her husband, often that is the response and behavior of women married to men who can't keep it zipped. It's clinically a classic. They seem aloof as a response to their husband's demeaning treatment. It's a protection, armor. She may act all cool but he humiliated his family in front of the entire world. She has walls built up all around her. As I said, it's clinically a classic for the wives of philandering husbands to seem aloof to the world.

Lee

Hillary. But to those who say that if she is the Dem nominee they won't vote for her because there is no difference between her and the current occupant of the WH, I have one thing to say, repeatedly:

SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

The next president will name at least 2 SC justices, and they are appointed for life.

That was also true when Nader said there would be no difference between a Republican and a Democratic president in 2000. Now we have Roberts and Alito, both young and healthy, both Federalist Society thugs who will support the unconstitutional theory of the unitary executive.

1. Not sure if you'd call me a woman
2. Don't hate her, but really hope she doesn't win the primaries
3. The reasons I hope she doesn't win the primaries have nothing to do with gender related issues. More to do with free trade, healthcare, and her trying to convince Congress to give military aid to Colombia.
4. If she wins the primaries I guess I'll vote for her anyway in the general election. Wish I could vote in the primaries.